I am rather doubtfull to the realsim of computer - wargames. They are produced too much for the masses. If you're looking for realism (on a certain level) you're more or less bound to the different boardgames that are around. And even then ...
Bogro
I played a lot of those games when I was younger (in the military, we had a lot of players and a lot of time) before the juiced-up computers of the late 1990s hit the scene.
Actually, I miss those days. Haggling over rules and improvising was part of the experience, something computers now eliminate. Avalon Hill in the mid-1990s computerized some of its WWII hex-board games, which at the time I thought was fantastic because the computer handled the complex rules. But, those sort of games appear to no longer be made for the computer, replaced by too many "real-time strategy" (an abomination!).
And even then ...
Bogro
And even then.... yeah, a lot of these really complex games come across as laughable. It's difficult to simulate sweat, adrenaline, exhaustion, and raw terror with die rolls and constitution checks, especially when the game designer has probably never experienced what he is modeling first-hand.
Actually, even a perfect wargame is conceptually flawed due to the absence of the player having something real to lose. A real commander on the field faces career ruin or death if he fails--that contributes to mistakes, et cetera. Sipping coffee over a game of "Siege of Jerusalem" boils the game down to a very complicated version of chess, not something that actually simulates history. And, what about hindsight? How many WWII games make it seem very easy for the Germans to have conquered Russia! When in reality, due to internal politics, delusions, and conflicts, they were doomed from the start?
These are chess games, not reality simulators.....
Huh? (What am I going on about???)
